Mises and Madison

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the DETAIL of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a METAMORPHOSIS of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -April 20, 1831 Letter from James Madison (dubbed Father of the U.S. Constitution for his role in drafting of the text; see also The Federalist Papers, published on behalf of the American system as one of limited government of by and for the people of A Free Republic)~

"MODERN CRYPTODESPOTISM, which arrogates to itself the name of liberalism, finds fault with the negativity of the concept of freedom. The censure is spurious as it refers merely to the grammatical form of the idea and does not comprehend that all civil rights can be as well defined in affirmative as in negative terms. THEY ARE NEGATIVE AS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO OBVIATE AN EVIL, NAMELY THE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE POLICE POWER [OF GOVERNMENT], AND TO PREVENT THE STATE FROM BECOMING TOTALITARIAN." -Ludwig von Mises in chapter 21, The Theory of Money and Credit~

Prov. 11:3 - If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?

Friday, February 3, 2012

State of the Union: A Conservative Response

Maybe we should try to understand our situation a little better.

Angelo Codevilla in his Claremont Review of Books essay, The Chosen One points out:

"...SINCE THE DAYS OF KARL MARX'S FIRST INTERNATIONAL A CENTURY AND A HALF AGO, THIS VERY HUMAN OPPOSITION BETWEEN SOCIALISTIC THEORY (EGALITARIANISM) AND SOCIALIST REALITY (OLIGARCHIC OPPRESSION) HAS BEDEVILED THE LEFT. Marx laid the problem bare in his "Critique of the Gotha Program" (1875). Lenin dealt with it honestly and brutally in What Is to Be Done? (1902)—the foundational document of Communism. By acknowledging that the Communist Party is not the common people's representative, but rather its "vanguard," Leninists were comfortable with a party responsible only to itself and to history, a party that openly demanded deference from the humans whose habits it forcibly reshaped. Communism's undeniable horrors forced the New Left to disassociate itself from What Is to Be Done? and once again to pretend that its socialism was neither oligarchic nor coercive, that somehow it was on the side of ordinary folks. This is a much tougher sell in the 21st century than it was in the 19th. Contemporary socialists try to explain away the common man's suspicion of them as harbingers of oligarchy, corruption, and coercion by resorting to jargon (e.g., "false consciousness" and "socio-economic anxiety"). But that is ever less convincing. THIS IS WHY THE MOVEMENT ARGUES SO STRENUOUSLY WITH ITSELF ABOUT WHETHER AND HOW MUCH IT SHOULD DISSIMULATE ITS AGENDA."
(The essay from which the above quote is taken discusses and analyzes Dreams from my Father by BARACK OBAMA; The Audacity of Hope by BARACK OBAMA; Radical-in-Chief by STANLEY KURTZ and other books which show Obama's extremist ties and ideologically Marxist pedigree and upbringing. It goes a long way towards understanding the mentality towards the American people and form of government which Barack Hussein Obama holds.)

This brings us to David Horowitz's Freedom Center pamphlet, Barack Obama's Rules For Revolution: THE ALINSKY MODEL...

This pamphlet gets into the "popular front" vs. the up-front revolutionary agenda of utopian hardliners and hacks such as Barack Obama. Understanding' Obama and the left's intellectual leaders and influences is key to understanding what is happening in America today.

Quoting from Horowitz:

My parents, who were card-carrying Communists, never referred to themselves as Communists but always as "progressives," as did their friends and political comrades. The "Progressive Party" was created by the Communist Party to challenge Harry Truman in the 1948 election because he opposed the spread of Stalin's empire. The Progressive Party was led by Roosevelt's vice president, HENRY WALLACE, and was the vehicle chosen by Communists to lead their followers out of the Democratic Party, which they had joined during the "popular front" of the 1930s. The progressives rejoined the Democrats during the McGovern campaign of 1972 and with the formation of a hundred-plus member Progressive Caucus in the congressional party and the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency to become its most important political force.
As David Horowitz points out, "THERE'S NOTHING NEW ABOUT RADICALS CAMOUFLAGING THEIR AGENDAS AS MODERATE IN ORDER TO DISARM THEIR OPPOSITION [...] It was Lenin's idea too, from whom Alinsky appropriated it in the first place." (See Horowitz quoting p. 37 of Rules for Radials by Saul Alinsky)

It doesn't seem that there is enough education on what the Cold War, between the Soviet Union and the United States, Communism and Capitalism, was about. It is all very superficial and conveniently glossed over. No real general understanding about why and how limited government and economic freedom and liberty works and how Communism fails while violating the principles and rights which the American constitution is there to safeguard.

People don't really understand why some are so motivated and hellbent on the betrayal of America and liberty in the first place. This, too, must be explored and explained. It is not merely "esoteric discussion."

Why is America in such shambles today? Most Americans believed America to be this indestructable titan, and giant in science, progress and economics. Yet look around at the moral, economic, and spirtitual wasteland that is becoming more and more prevalent in this country.

There was a false sense of security because people had good reason to believe that no foe, no enemy could defeat and destroy America. Especially in a military confrontation. None really wanted to believe, to notice, or take seriously the threat and danger from within, which continues its war against America and her values. Yet, we see a more and more offensive and audacious army and network of organizations working (academically, politically, culturally) to push God away from America and the American mind while strengthening the powers of government and the would-be masterminds who know how to rule society and the economy better than the citizens themselves.   

People don't believe that some people would WANT to achieve this result, which America's enemies from abroad have called for, the destruction of America.  

They "can’t really want to destroy a society that is democratic and liberal, and more equal than other." Horowitz, and I, say "OH YES THEY CAN." You just have to put yourself in the Communist/Marxist and "we can't wait" mindframe:

There is no goodness that trumps the dream [and promise]of a heaven on earth. And because America is a real world society, managed by real and problematic human beings, it will never be equal, or liberal, or democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies to compensate them for their longing for a perfect world [...] Compared to this heaven even America is hell.

So, having a better understanding of motive and of the "why" (the desire to achieve misguided utopian promises based on the myopic dogma of Karl Marx which the current president was fed by his Marxist mother Stanley Ann Dunn Ham to Frank M Davis and through his life as he self-reinforced this erronious and destructive point of view,) we can go back to examining the "how" of where America is today.
In pages 18 and 19 of Barack Obama's Rules For Revolution: The Alinsky Model we find that

While the Communist Left pretended to be Jeffersonian Democrats and "progressives" and formed "popular fronts" with liberals, the New Left radicals disdained these deceptions, REGARDING THEM AS A DISPLAY OF WEAKNESS [and inauthenticity.] To distinguish themselves from such popular front politics, sixties radicals said they were revolutionaries and proud of it.

New Left radicals despised and attacked liberals and created riots at the Democratic Party conventions. Their typical slogans were "Up againt the wall motherf-ker" and "Off the pig", telegraphing exactly how they felt [...] THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ALINSKY'S ADVICE TO RADICALS IS TO LIE TO THEIR OPPONENTS AND DISARM THEM BY PRETENDING TO BE MODERATES AND LIBERALS.

Deception is the radical's most important weapon, and it has been a prominent one since the end of the sixties. Racial arsonists such as Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright pose as civil rights activists; anti-American radicals such as BILL AYERS pose as patriotic progressives; SOCIALISTS POSE AS LIBERALS. The mark of their success is reflected in the fact that conservatives collude in the deception and call them liberals as well.
Here's another key point:

CONSERVATIVES THINK OF WAR AS A METAPHOR WHEN APPLIED TO POLITICS. FOR RADICALS, THE WAR IS REAL. That is why when partisans of the left go into battle, they set out to destroy their opponents by stigmatizing them as "racists," "sexists," [...] It is also why they so often pretend to be what they are not ("liberals" for example) and rarely say what they mean. Deception for them is a military tactic in a war that is designed to eliminate the enemy. Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is first of all a comradely critique of the sixties' New Left. What bothers Alinsky about these radicals is their honesty - which may have been their only redeeming feature [...] THERE'S NOTHING NEW ABOUT RADICALS CAMOUFLAGING THEIR AGENDAS AS MODERATE IN ORDER TO DISARM THEIR OPPOSITION [...] It was Lenin's idea too, from whom Alinsky appropriated it in the first place.

Lenin is one of Alinsky's heroes (Castro is another). ALINSKY INVOKES LENIN IN THE COURSE OF CHIDING THE RHETORICAL RADICALS OVER A FAMOUS SIXTIES SLOGAN, which originated with the Chinese Communist dictator Mao Zedong. The slogan was "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," and during the 1960s it was a favorite cry of the Black Panthers and other radical groups. Regarding this, Alinsky comments: "'Power comes out of the barrel of a gun' is an absurd rallying cry when the other side has all the guns. LENIN WAS A PRAGMATIST; WHEN HE RETURNED TO WHAT WAS THEN PETROGRAD FROM EXILE, HE SAID THAT THE BOLSHEVIKS STOOD FOR GETTING POWER THROUGH THE BALLOT BUT WOULD RECONSIDER AFTER THEY GOT THE GUNS." (Rules for Radicals, p. 37)

I'll leave it at that.

(P.S. If you would like to get copies of Barack Obama's Rules for Radicals: THE ALINSKY MODEL, they are available at the FrontPageMagazine.com BOOKSTORE for $3.00 a piece and $1 dollar a piece when purchasing 25 or more copies. Its is not the cheap kind of paper but of the high-quality waxy/glossy higher end stuff and a very handy size. Pass these around to friends and please share and link to this post if you found it useful. Thank you. )

No comments:

Post a Comment